British Comedy Guide

Finding the humour on the page Page 2

Quote: Griff @ January 25 2009, 11:23 PM GMT

1. INT - A FUNNY ROOM THAT YOU ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AT AND START LAUGHING

A MAN (FUNNY) AND A WOMAN (HILARIOUS) ARE ARGUING IN A HILARIOUS WAY.

MAN (HILARIOUSLY): I am not doing that!

THE MAN CAPERS HILARIOUSLY IN A CLEVER SLAPSTICK WAY.

WOMAN (HYSTERICALLY FUNNY): Oh yes you are!

SHE PULLS A MASSIVE FUNNY FACE EVEN FUNNIER THAN QUEENIE OFF OF BLACKADDER.

AUDIENCE ROAR WITH LAUGHTER.

THE END.

Absolute plagarism. The reason I don't post in critique anymore!

Angry

I think Lee's right inasmuch as many scripts I've read are not particularly funny off the page.

I have both sets of The Office scripts and if I read them coldly and without imagining the actors playing those characters then they don't get anywhere near the total result of script, actors and production all working in harmony.

I believe consequently that it's a sort of black art that needs all the parts functioning together.

I think that the vision to get these shows made and to produce classics like The Royles and the Office etc must evolve in a lot of pre-production meetings where the characters' traits and subtle nuances are discussed and then built upon.

One of my favourite shows of all time is Early Doors and although I haven't read the scripts I know the lines well enough to imagine that, once agiain, the brilliance of this show is not purely down to the written word.

The written word is the keystone that everything else is built upon and it would be difficult to underestimate its importance in the process, however there is more to it than just the word, it's that certain je ne sais quoi,

La plume de ma tante Rodney!...hark at me will yah? Wittering on there like some kinda media studies graduate.

Quote: Blenkinsop @ January 25 2009, 11:29 PM GMT

I think Lee's right inasmuch as many scripts I've read are not particularly funny off the page.

I have both sets of The Office scripts and if I read them coldly and without imagining the actors playing those characters then they don't get anywhere near the total result of script, actors and production all working in harmony.

I believe consequently that it's a sort of black art that needs all the parts functioning together.

I think that the vision to get these shows made and to produce classics like The Royles and the Office etc must evolve in a lot of pre-production meetings where the characters' traits and subtle nuances are discussed and then built upon.

One of my favourite shows of all time is Early Doors and although I haven't read the scripts I know the lines well enough to imagine that, once agiain, the brilliance of this show is not purely down to the written word.

The written word is the keystone that everything else is built upon and it would be difficult to underestimate its importance in the process, however there is more to it than just the word, it's that certain je ne sais quoi,

La plume de ma tante Rodney!...hark at me will yah? Wittering on there like some kinda media studies graduate.

Non musicians/composers find it very hard to read an operatic score, they find it even harder to write one.

Quote: Griff @ January 25 2009, 11:18 PM GMT

Basically if you've got a clear idea in your head why what you've written should be funny, the only thing stopping you communicating that to the reader is you?

Up to a point; I personally find visual humour much harder to write than dialogue, and I am never sure if I have succeeded in putting it across, but yes that is my job as the writer. But actors bring a script to life; it is difficult for a reader visualise a character before it has been cast, and the more the comedy derives from the characters the more that is going to be an issue. (Sometimes I mentally cast a part as I am writing just so I can visualise it.)

I am sure that in a lot of shows the writing changes a lot over time as the writers become comfortable with the performers and can visualise how gags are going to play out, even if they probably would not read funny if you had never seen the show.

Quote: Marc P @ January 25 2009, 11:34 PM GMT

Non musicians/composers find it very hard to read an operatic score, they find it even harder to write one.

Eh?

Quote: Blenkinsop @ January 25 2009, 11:36 PM GMT

Eh?

?

Ce si? Si ce what?

Quote: Blenkinsop @ January 25 2009, 11:42 PM GMT

Ce si? Si ce what?

Sometimes writers use a thing called an anlaogy to explain something else - actually all art is metaphor in a way. But basically a composer can read a musical score and can 'hear' it in is head. Scriptwriters do the same thing with a script, only they can visualise it. The more you have a handle on your craft the more you can handle it I guess.

Quote: Griff @ January 25 2009, 11:49 PM GMT

Again, can I just mention Life Of Riley.

You can if you can explain this equation ART = LIFE OF RILEY

Image
[/quote]

Denial of mad cow disease by head of BBC comedy puzzles viewers of Green Green Grass.

Quote: Marc P @ January 25 2009, 11:46 PM GMT

Sometimes writers use a thing called an anlaogy to explain something else - actually all art is metaphor in a way. But basically a composer can read a musical score and can 'hear' it in is head. Scriptwriters do the same thing with a script, only they can visualise it. The more you have a handle on your craft the more you can handle it I guess.

I agree with that for sure Marc

But what we're saying here is not how it relates to the writer him / herself. It's a given surely that the writer *gets* it or else they wouldn't write it in the first place.

It's more how does it relate to a dispassionate third party (quite often an commissioning editor or broadcaster or somesuch)?

The question being asked here in simple terms (I believe) by the original post is:

I doesn't look anything special on paper so how come that in fact it actually *is*"?

Quote: Blenkinsop @ January 25 2009, 11:55 PM GMT

But what we're saying here is not how it relates to the writer him / herself. It's a given surely that the writer *gets* it or else they wouldn't write it in the first place.

The job of a writer is to convey what he gets to that third party. That's the art and the craft. CS Lewis in his preface to Paradise Lost which I often paraphrase says something like... 'art is the the translation of the universal through the individual to the universal' ... which about sums it up. It's a hard gig... but that's about it. If you are a writer you can put it on the page.

:)

Quote: Griff @ January 25 2009, 11:59 PM GMT

The point Marc's making is that reading scripts is a skill. An experienced scriptwriter, actor, director, producer, or anyone involved with working with scripts for a long time, will be able to pick up a script and imagine its potential far better than someone who has only read two or three scripts in their life and who has never been involved in bringing scripts to life.

So the more scripts you read and write and work with, the less something like The Royle Family will seem devoid of potential when you read it.

It's not unusual for screenwriters starting out to write feature films to download hundreds of feature film scripts and read them, to get a proper feel for the medium.

Oh I see.

But I think that the total package has to be a combination of all parts of the process - writers - actors - producers.

I saw on comedy connections or something like that, the head of comedy at the Beeb at time, Jon Plowman I think, when the Royle Family was pitched (and I suppose he had seen and worked with a few scripts prior to that) saying that as written, the fact that nowt really happened and the interminable pauses terrified him when he first saw it.

However he was won round in the end and boy was he thankful that he had been

I'm awa' to bed now and to quote the great man, well today at least anyway...

'Opera is where a man gets stabbed in the back and instead of dying he sings!'

:)

Quote: Griff @ January 26 2009, 12:07 AM GMT

This is not a universal truth, unfortunately.

:D

Night night Marc Wave

Share this page